Women and the priesthood
 

I have no idea what will happen on this issue (if anything) but the Church has plenty to work with if it is so inclined.

The distinction between prophet and priest is an easy one. Going back into the OT, priests have always been males, but prophets certainly have not. Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and so on were all prophets (or prophetesses). It can be argued that female inspiration is equal to male inspiration, whether we're talking about Church administration or anything else. Deborah even spoke "Thus saith the Lord" in Judges (if memory serves).

This kind of official distinction would leave men in charge of administering the temple and ordinances, but not exclusively the Church. There's lots to flesh out here, but this distinction could be useful.

Temple teachings themselves could be elaborated on and "realized."

The Church has historical precedent for women having administrative and "council" power with Joseph's Annointed Quorum in Nauvoo.

The annointings for healings that RS members engaged in until about the 1930s could be drawn on.

There are some passages in the NT that suggest women had a more authoritative role, as well as the verses that assert that all are alike unto God, including, "male and female." (2 Ne. 26)

So there is plenty of "stuff" from which to frame a more authoritative role for women in the Church. I don't know if it will happen, but the "stuff" tells me that the door doesn't have to be closed.

There is historical precedent for women being more involved. It will be slow to happen in the modern Church.

What benefits for women do you forsee if more roles were invoked?

What benefits for men?

If women, who have more free time if they are not working outside the home, were given more roles, would that be a good thing? Would you want to function within an organization where the stay at home moms ran the church at the local level?

Thanks for the post. You just made my day brighter. The women of the church are the sleeping tiger. Some day they will have their day and make the church better in my opinion.

Whether women are designated to receive the priesthood or not, that is not my issue. It's the leadership role.

Women are more intimately involved with the day to day affairs of the church than the ancient church of Deborah's ever were.

So what you're saying is, in former times women were more empowed in God's church than today?

That seems a unlikely proposition.

I think a good argument can be made that women in Utah were power empowered in 1880 than they were in 1960. Many women lived alone because they were in polygamous marriages and their husbands only spent a small amount of time with them in their town. So what did they do? They worked. In jobs that are/were considered traditionally-male.

Polygamy did have some benefits in terms of women's rights.

He's also obliquely referring to the women blessing livestock a la a priesthood blessing and certain other references which shan't be discussed here.

I'm just going from the quote in Mike's post, but as usual, tex doesn't have a clue about what I said.

And he doesn't want to. He just wants to set up more straw men, throw out more red herrings, declare "settled doctrine" in the face of A of F 9, and generally make a menace of himself.

His constant misconstuence is ridiculous.

Everyone on the board should put the guy on ignore.

Some people's purpose in life is to be a punching bag, so that arms, shoulders, hands, and legs can be strengthened in preparation for the real battle.

Those of you that are punching bags, I think you already know.

It's kinda cute how you ignore me, but don't really ignore me. Kinda fun, actually. :)